There is no absolutely conclusive evidence that proves Lee Harvey Oswald’s guilt or innocence of the assassination of President Kennedy.•There are no known photographs of anyone, whether Oswald or someone who was not Oswald, firing a gun from the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository.•Nor are there any photographs showing Oswald elsewhere at the time of the assassination, although one photograph, taken halfway through the shooting, depicted a man who resembled Oswald standing in the doorway of the TSBD. The man turned out to be one Billy Lovelady, a colleague of Oswald’s.1

The Prosecution and the Jury

Had Lee Oswald not been murdered by Jack Ruby, it would have been up to the prosecution in a court of law to prove the case against him beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury of citizens.

In the event, the case against Oswald was made by the Warren Commission. The jury, formed of the print and broadcast media, accepted a very low standard of proof and delivered an almost unanimous verdict: Oswald alone was guilty of the assassination.

Evidence of Oswald’s Innocence

There were weaknesses in all three elements of the case against Lee Harvey Oswald as the lone assassin of President Kennedy:1.The first claim, that all of the shooting came from the easternmost south–facing window on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository, was supported by some of the eye–witness evidence but was strongly contradicted by the medical and photographic evidence.2.The second claim, that Oswald had brought a rifle to work and was on the sixth floor with the rifle at the time of the shooting, was contradicted by all of the relevant, credible evidence. None of this evidence was conclusive, however, so the claim remained plausible.3.The third claim, that it was physically possible for a lone gunman to have caused all the known injuries with only three shots, turned out to be emphatically contradicted by the medical, photographic and eye–witness evidence.

Oswald was almost certainly not the lone gunman that he was made out to be. Other evidence suggested very strongly that:•Oswald had not fired a rifle at all on the day of the assassination,•and a bullet was dishonestly placed into evidence in order to frame Oswald.

Evidence of Oswald’s Guilt

It is commonly recognised, and even occasionally admitted by the news media, that the Warren Commission made no attempt to discover how or by whom President Kennedy was killed.2 Neither the commission nor the FBI, the agency that supplied almost all of the evidence that was considered by the commission, acted in good faith; both of them consistently ignored or misrepresented evidence or witnesses that were unhelpful to the commission’s preconceived conclusions.3

Of course, the Warren Commission’s dishonesty does not by itself invalidate its conclusions. It is possible to argue that, despite the weakness of the Warren Report’s case against him, Lee Harvey Oswald did in fact kill President Kennedy. For this argument to be valid, however, it is necessary for many witnesses and other individuals to have been mistaken and for many unlikely eventualities all to have happened.

Witnesses Must Have Been Mistaken•The two witnesses who saw Oswald carrying a bag on the morning of the assassination, and who were insistent that the bag was too small to have contained a rifle, must have been mistaken.4•Arnold Rowland, the witness who saw a gunman on the sixth floor a few minutes before the shooting, at a time when Oswald had a strong alibi, must have been mistaken.5•The many eye–witnesses who claimed to have heard gunshots from the direction of the grassy knoll, or who claimed to have seen smoke or smelled gunpowder from that direction, must have been mistaken.6•The doctors in Dallas who claimed that President Kennedy’s throat wound was one of entrance, not exit, must have been mistaken.7•The many medical and other witnesses who claimed to have seen a large wound located toward the back of Kennedy’s head, must have been mistaken.8•The pathologists at the autopsy, who were insistent that there was an entry wound on President Kennedy’s skull that was lower than the large exit wound, and who were equally insistent that there was no entry wound high on the back of the skull, must have been mistaken.9•The witnesses who claimed to have seen a bullet hole lower in Kennedy’s back than was consistent with the single–bullet theory, must have been mistaken.10•Dr Charles Carrico, who saw Kennedy’s throat wound before the president’s shirt and tie were removed, and who claimed that the wound was located above the shirt, must have been mistaken.11•John Connally, who was sitting directly in front of Kennedy, and who maintained under oath and repeatedly in later interviews that he and Kennedy were injured by separate bullets, must have been mistaken.12•Nellie Connally, who was sitting to her husband’s left, and who also claimed that he and the president were injured by separate bullets, must have been mistaken.13•The police motorcyclist who was riding to the president’s right, and who also claimed that Kennedy and Connally were injured by separate bullets, must have been mistaken.14•The experts from the US Army and the FBI, who found that the sixth–floor rifle was too inaccurate to have been able to accomplish the shooting, must have been mistaken.15

Unlikely Events Must Have Occurred•Immediately after the shooting, Oswald must have dashed down four flights of stairs in less time than it took two other men to climb one flight.16•The several well–placed witnesses who failed to see or hear Oswald running down the wooden stairs must have been exceptionally negligent.17•The large wound in the president’s head, which displayed all the signs of having been caused by a soft–nosed bullet, must instead have been the result of very unusual behaviour by a solid, metal–jacketed bullet.18•For the single–bullet theory to be true, Kennedy must have suddenly leaned much further forward than he is shown to have done in any of the known photographs or films; and his jacket must have bunched up much more than was shown in a photograph taken less than half a second before he became visible from the sixth–floor window; and his shirt must have bunched up far more than could reasonably have happened.19•The Zapruder film, which shows Connally reacting to a bullet wound noticeably later than Kennedy, and which shows Connally still gripping his cowboy hat seconds after Kennedy had been shot, must have been tampered with.20•The back–and–to–the–left movement of Kennedy’s head must have been a virtually impossible response to a shot fired from almost directly behind him; or, again, the Zapruder film must have been altered.21•The paraffin tests on Oswald’s hands and cheek, which indicated that he had not fired a rifle on the day of the assassination, must have been incompetently administered.22

Degrees of Plausibility

Not all of these unlikely eventualities are equally unlikely. It is not implausible that some of them did in fact occur. Frazier and Randle, who saw Oswald carrying a paper bag to work, may plausibly have underestimated the size of the bag. Arnold Rowland may plausibly have been mistaken about the time when he saw a gunman on the sixth floor.

Other eventualities, however, are less likely to have happened. The notion that the Zapruder film was altered to show evidence of conspiracy, for example, is quite implausible.23

For Oswald to have committed the assassination, every single one of these unlikely eventualities, and several others, must have occurred.

So Who Killed President Kennedy?

A more fruitful question would be: who didn’t kill President Kennedy? Lee Harvey Oswald, the one person investigated in detail, can be eliminated from suspicion even on the basis of the evidence made available to the Warren Commission, let alone on the basis of the evidence that has been made public since then.

The unimportant question of who pulled the triggers will probably never be answered. To explore the more significant question, of who was behind the shooting, it is necessary to examine some of the many JFK assassination conspiracy theories and the wider political context of the assassination.

Notes1.Oswald and Lovelady were not dissimilar in appearance. The face of the figure in James Altgens’s photograph occupies a tiny part of the frame, and is insufficiently detailed to provide a definitive judgment, at least in published versions of the photograph. Current majority opinion is that the man’s shirt more closely resembles that worn by Lovelady than that worn by Oswald when he was arrested. For details, see Was Oswald on the TSBD Front Steps?2.Bertrand Russell, in his 16 Questions on the Assassination, was one of the first commentators to point out the Warren Commission’s lack of concern over who killed Kennedy:“At the outset the Commission appointed six panels through which it would conduct its enquiry. They considered: (1) What did Oswald do on November 22, 1963? (2) What was Oswald’s background? (3) What did Oswald do in the U.S. Marine Corps, and in the Soviet Union? (4) How did Ruby kill Oswald? (5) What is Ruby’s background? (6) What efforts were taken to protect the President on November 22?This raises my fourth question: Why did the Warren Commission not establish a panel to deal with the question of who killed President Kennedy?”3.For examples of the Warren Commission’s suppression of inconvenient evidence and witnesses, see: the claim by a doctor at Parkland Hospital that President Kennedy was shot from in front, the rumours that Oswald was an FBI agent, and the ballistics tests carried out by the Department of Defense that demonstrated that the so–called magic bullet, Commission Exhibit 399, could not have caused Governor Connally’s injuries. The Commission even suppressed the dissenting views of one of its members, Senator Richard Russell; see Richard Russell and the Warren Report.4.The rifle that had been discovered on the sixth floor was 40.2 inches long when in use, and 34.8 inches long when disassembled: Warren Commission Hearings, vol.3, p.395. Both Buell Wesley Frazier, who had given Oswald a lift to work that morning, and his sister, Linnie Mae Randle, at whose house Oswald had met Frazier, claimed that the bag they saw was about 27 inches long. Frazier: Warren Commission Hearings, vol.2, pp.239–43 and Warren Commission Hearings, vol.24, p.409. Randle: Warren Commission Hearings, vol.2, pp.248–50 and Warren Commission Hearings, vol.24, p.408.5.Arnold Rowland’s testimony: Warren Commission Hearings, vol.2, pp.169–189. He saw a gunman on the sixth floor at the same time as Carolyn Arnold saw Oswald on either the first or second floor.6.Among the 40 witnesses who claimed that shots had come from the infamous grassy knoll in the northwest corner of Dealey Plaza are: William Newman (“He was hit in the side of the head. … I thought the shots had come from the garden directly behind me, that was on an elevation from where I was.” [Warren Commission Hearings, vol.19, p.490]); Thomas Murphy (“These shots came from a spot just west of the Texas School Book Depository Building.” [Warren Commission Hearings, vol.22, p.835]); John Chism (“I looked behind me, to see if it was a fireworks display or something.” [Warren Commission Hearings, vol.24, p.204]); Faye Chism (“It came from what I thought was behind us.” [ibid., p.205]); Sam Holland (“The puff of smoke I saw definitely came from behind the arcade through the trees.” [ibid., p.212]); Jean Newman (“The shots came from my right.” [ibid., p.218]); and two Secret Service agents, Paul Landis (“The [fatal] shot came from somewhere towards the front.” [Warren Commission Hearings, vol.18, p.759]) and Forrest Sorrels (“I looked towards the top of the terrace to my right as the sound of the shots seemed to come from that direction.” [Warren Commission Hearings, vol.21, p.548]).7.In a press conference at Parkland Hospital soon after the assassination, Dr Malcolm Perry, the surgeon who examined President Kennedy’s throat wound, stated three times that the wound was caused by a shot from the front.8.In several of the accounts written by the medical staff shortly after President Kennedy’s treatment at Parkland Hospital, the large head wound is described as extending into the rear of the head: Warren Commission Hearings, vol.17, pp.1–22 (Commission Exhibit 392).9.The autopsy report (Warren Report, p.541) claimed that there was an entry wound close to the external occipital protuberance, the small bony lump low on the back of the head. The Warren Commission published a drawing (Commission Exhibit 388) which demonstrated that this bullet wound was aligned both with the sixth floor window and the large wound at the top of the president’s head. The Zapruder film, however, showed that this drawing was inaccurate, and that Kennedy’s head was not tilted far enough forward to have allowed a shot from the sixth floor, sixty feet above the road, to enter near the external occipital protuberance and come out of the top of the head. See frame 312 and frame 313 for the actual angle of Kennedy’s head at the moment of impact. Later official investigations felt obliged to move the entry wound to a higher, more helpful location. Dr James Humes, the senior pathologist at the autopsy, did not agree: HSCA Report, appendix vol.7, p.254.10.The death certificate prepared by Dr George Burkley stated that the back wound was located at “about the level of the third thoracic vertebra” (ARRB MD6, p.2), which is typically four to six inches below the top of the shoulders. Clint Hill, the Secret Service agent who famously had jumped onto the presidential limousine, and who attended part of the autopsy, wrote that “I observed a wound about six inches down from the neckline on the back just to the right of the spinal column” (Warren Commission Hearings, vol.18, p.744 (Commission Exhibit 1024)). The two FBI agents who attended the autopsy described “a bullet hole which was below the shoulders and two inches to the right of the middle line of the spinal column” (Sibert and O’Neill Report). For the single–bullet theory to be credible, the bullet needed to have entered President Kennedy at the base of the neck, as depicted in Commission Exhibit 385. If the single–bullet theory was false, the assassination could not plausibly have been carried out by just one gunman.11.Dr Charles Carrico’s testimony: Warren Commission Hearings, vol.3, pp.361f.12.Governor Connally’s testimony: Warren Commission Hearings, vol.4, pp.135f. Among his many later remarks reaffirming his belief that he and Kennedy were struck by separate bullets: “there is my absolute knowledge that … one bullet caused the president’s first wound and that an entirely separate shot struck me. It is a certainty. I will never change my mind” (Washington Post, 21 November 1966). If Connally’s and Kennedy’s non–fatal wounds were caused by more than one bullet, those bullets must have been fired by more than one gunman. Connally’s testimony even caused one of the Warren Commissioners to doubt that Oswald had committed the crime alone; see Richard Russell and the Warren Report.13.Nellie Connally testified that “I turned over my right shoulder and looked back, and saw the President as he had both hands at his neck. … Then very soon there was the second shot that hit John” (Warren Commission Hearings, vol.4, p.147).14.James Chaney, the police motorcyclist who was closest to Kennedy, was not called before the Warren Commission, but his colleague, Marrion Baker, testified that “I talked to Jim Chaney, and he made the statement that the two shots hit Kennedy first and then the other one hit the Governor.” (Warren Commission Hearings, vol.3, p.266).15.The rifle that had been discovered on the sixth floor of the TSBD was examined by experts from the US Army and the FBI. They stated that it was necessary to apply shims before the telescopic sight could be used (Warren Commission Hearings, vol.3, p.443); that even when the sight had been repaired it was still inaccurate (ibid., p.405); and that the condition of the bolt and trigger pull meant that the rifle could not be aimed accurately (ibid., pp.449–51).16.Oswald met two witnesses, an employee of the Depository and a policeman, on the second floor about a minute and a half after the assassination. For the timing of the encounter, see Howard Roffman, Presumed Guilty: How and Why the Warren Commission Framed Lee Harvey Oswald, Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 1975, pp.209ff (available online at http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/PG/PGchp8.html).17.No–one saw or heard Oswald’s alleged descent from the sixth floor. Of the four employees who were on or close to the stairs on the fourth floor, only Victoria Adams was called before the Warren Commission. She denied seeing anyone on the stairs: Warren Commission Hearings, vol. 6, pp. 388–90. For the credibility of Victoria Adams’s account, see Gerald D. McKnight, Breach of Trust: How the Warren Commission Failed the Nation and Why, University Press of Kansas, 2005, pp.113f. Jack Dougherty was close to the stairs on the fifth floor, and did not notice anyone descending: Warren Commission Hearings, vol.6, pp.380–1.18.For evidence that the head wound was consistent with having been caused by a soft–nosed bullet rather than a metal–jacketed bullet, see G. Paul Chambers, Head Shot: The Science Behind the JFK Assassination, Prometheus Books, 2010, and Bonar Menninger, Mortal Error: The Shot That Killed JFK, St. Martin’s Press, 1992. The central conclusion of Menninger’s book is wrong, for reasons given in the Fiction, Propaganda and the Media section, but the book’s treatment of the ballistics evidence is sound.19.There was a period of only three–quarters of a second in which the hypothetical single bullet could have been fired. Kennedy was photographed by Phil Willis less than half a second before this. His posture and the alignment of his jacket are clearly visible; they show that the locations of the bullet holes in his clothing, and the location of his throat wound, are entirely inconsistent with the trajectory of a shot from the sixth floor of the TSBD.20.If Oswald had been the lone assassin, all of President Kennedy’s and Governor Connally’s non–fatal wounds must have been caused by just one bullet. The Zapruder film shows Kennedy reacting to his throat wound as he comes into view at frame 225. Connally, however, reacts no earlier than about frame 238, and his right wrist is undamaged as late as frame 268, more than two seconds after frame 225.21.For the abrupt back–and–to–the–left motion of Kennedy’s head, see the Zapruder film online. The only plausible explanation for the motion is that it was caused by a shot from the front; see G. Paul Chambers, Head Shot: The Science Behind the JFK Assassination, Prometheus Books, 2010, pp.160–8.22.The paraffin tests showed no traces of gunpowder deposits on Oswald’s cheek: FBI HQ JFK Assassination File, 62–109060–8. In the words of an unpublished internal Warren Commission memo, “At best, the analysis shows that Oswald may have fired a pistol, although this is by no means certain. … There is no basis for concluding that he also fired a rifle” (Memo from Redlich to Dulles, 2 July 1964, Investigation and Evidence File, RG 272, Series 12, box 4, folder 3, National Archives). It is very likely that Oswald had fired neither a rifle nor a pistol on the day of the assassination. According to an FBI memo, Oswald’s pistol was defective: “the firing pin would not strike … the cartridges with sufficient force to fire them” (Jevons to Conrad, 12 February 1964, FBI HQ JFK Assassination File, 62–109060–916). This is corroborated by the testimony of the police officer who arrested Oswald: “I noticed on the primer of one of the shells it had an indentation on it, but not one that had been fired or anything — not that strong of an indentation” (Warren Commission Hearings, vol.3, p.301). The traces of nitrates on the casts of Oswald’s hands were consistent not only with gunpowder but also with several common substances, such as printing ink, with which Oswald certainly had come into contact on 22 November 1963.23.It has long been proposed that the Zapruder film has been altered in order to conceal evidence of conspiracy. The proposal fails for several reasons, not least that no–one had sufficient access to the film before it was copied and distributed. Until bootleg copies began to circulate a few years after the assassination, the film was never in the possession of anyone who promoted the idea of a conspiracy.

I think it's great that you can reference someone else's website rather than look and think on your own, so let's look at the first three points that were made by whomever it was that did this website:

"The first claim, that all of the shooting came from the easternmost south–facing window on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository, was supported by some of the eye–witness evidence but was strongly contradicted by the medical and photographic evidence.The second claim, that Oswald had brought a rifle to work and was on the sixth floor with the rifle at the time of the shooting, was contradicted by all of the relevant, credible evidence. None of this evidence was conclusive, however, so the claim remained plausible.The third claim, that it was physically possible for a lone gunman to have caused all the known injuries with only three shots, turned out to be emphatically contradicted by the medical, photographic and eye–witness evidence."

1) This is wrong. Period. The statement "supported by some" should actually say "supported by most." The medical evidence (not referenced) has determined that the shots were all from the rear. The photographic evidence supports that the shots all came from the rear. Again, simply put, this statement is as misleading as it can be.2) Who claimed Oswald brought a rifle to work? It was claimed he brought curtain rods as supported by the testimony of his driver, Wes Frazer. I'm not aware of anyone claiming they saw LHO with a rifle that day. This is a poor statement that simply tells me someone wasn't doing unbiased homework.3) Again, this is wrong. Period. All of the medical, photographic, and eye-witness evidence does support that it WAS physically possible for a lone gunman to have caused all known injuries. These tests have been conducted over and over and over. They all support that it was not only possible, but probable.

Syd, while I respect your interest in the assassination, and the interest of others who may read this, it would really be beneficial if the information came from sources that were credible and not conspiracy theory based. People should look at the facts and not unsupported theories.

We have? My memory is fading in my old age. Remind me again why people around the car could have protected shots coming from the 60 feet in the air? I truthfully don't remember that point being answered. I'm going to be in Dallas in a few weeks and will stop by again and see the angle for myself. Last time I was on the 6th floor was long before I realized there were some people who actually questioned the shooting.[/quote]That assumes LHO mastered time travel, remember, to get the job in the depository weeks in advance of possibly knowing 1) about the visit, and 2) about the route. Then of course the route changed at the last minute to an alternative poorly secured venue, the car did a >90 deg turn entering the plaza and slowing down which goes against all secret service motorcade protocol. People at the top had to set this up. Then you remember LHO avowing to the world that he was a patsy, saying 'now they will know who I am' sotto voce meaning he thought he was some sort of valued undercover intelligence operative up until that time, Jack Ruby's later testimony that he was just a puppet of some very powerful people charged to assassinate LHO in turn, etc.[/quote]Syd, could you clarify what statement you made above that supports your claim that my claim doesn't hold water? As a reminder, you were discussing the secret service not surrounding the vehicle and my point was that there could have been dozens of secret service around the vehicle but they wouldn't have been able to stop a bullet coming from the direction of the 6th floor. Your points above do not mention that fact. So, if you are saying my argument doesn't hold water, then why doesn't it? I want to get to the bottom of the investigation and find the truth as much as the next person. So, the conspiracy theorists who say the secret service weren't close to the vehicle, then I want to know why it matters since they wouldn't have been able to do anything about it. I beg of you, rather than post some lengthy website to someone else's conspiracy opinion, let's stick to the point. How does the fact that secret service personnel weren't holding on to the safety bar on the back of the limo have anything to do with LHO shooting JFK from the 6th floor?

We have? My memory is fading in my old age. Remind me again why people around the car could have protected shots coming from the 60 feet in the air? I truthfully don't remember that point being answered. I'm going to be in Dallas in a few weeks and will stop by again and see the angle for myself. Last time I was on the 6th floor was long before I realized there were some people who actually questioned the shooting.

That assumes LHO mastered time travel, remember, to get the job in the depository weeks in advance of possibly knowing 1) about the visit, and 2) about the route. Then of course the route changed at the last minute to an alternative poorly secured venue, the car did a >90 deg turn entering the plaza and slowing down which goes against all secret service motorcade protocol. People at the top had to set this up. Then you remember LHO avowing to the world that he was a patsy, saying 'now they will know who I am' sotto voce meaning he thought he was some sort of valued undercover intelligence operative up until that time, Jack Ruby's later testimony that he was just a puppet of some very powerful people charged to assassinate LHO in turn, etc.

Syd, could you clarify what statement you made above that supports your claim that my claim doesn't hold water? As a reminder, you were discussing the secret service not surrounding the vehicle and my point was that there could have been dozens of secret service around the vehicle but they wouldn't have been able to stop a bullet coming from the direction of the 6th floor. Your points above do not mention that fact. So, if you are saying my argument doesn't hold water, then why doesn't it? I want to get to the bottom of the investigation and find the truth as much as the next person. So, the conspiracy theorists who say the secret service weren't close to the vehicle, then I want to know why it matters since they wouldn't have been able to do anything about it. I beg of you, rather than post some lengthy website to someone else's conspiracy opinion, let's stick to the point. How does the fact that secret service personnel weren't holding on to the safety bar on the back of the limo have anything to do with LHO shooting JFK from the 6th floor?

You seem to have lost your quote tags as well as your marbles in your old age.

Those issues have already been addressed. LHO's apparent mastery of time travel to know about the visit and the route change as a 'jerk who had never worked a day in his life with no intelligence connections' as we are told, the time taken to get down 4 flights of stairs, trees blocking the line of sight somewhat, LHO was a poor shot, the rifle was a piece of crap as Jesse Ventura demonstrates in the above video, requiring a forceful slamming of each new cartridge and resighting to take another shot, 2-3 accurate shots were impossible in 5 or 6 seconds even for an experienced rifleman, it's clear JFK was hit by bullets from the front or side, not just the rear, of course the secret servicemen ORDINARILY STANDING ON THE SPECIAL REAR RUNNING BOARDS OF THE PRESIDENTIAL LIMOUSINE WOULD HAVE BLOCKED SHOTS FROM THE 6TH FLOOR, AS THEY ARE BOTH STANDING AND RAISED AT THE CAR'S BUMPER LEVEL, etc. Then of course the Secret Service SHOULD HAVE SCOUTED OUT THE ENTIRE AREA, HAD RIFLEMEN ON THE ROOFTOPS, NOT ALLOWED THE ROUTE CHANGE AND SLOWING DOWN AND > 90 DEG TURN, SPOTTED A GUNMAN IN THE WINDOW OF THE 6TH FLOOR OF THE DEPOSITORY, ETC ETC.

In actual fact numerous eyewitnesses reported seeing a gunman up there and assumed it WAS the Secret Service, you tell me how it's possible an ordinary bystander could have noticed that detail when the Secret Service men supposedly trained to scan entire areas constantly for threats missed it?

Then there's the question of 'fake' secret servicemen on the railway bridge and around the grassy knoll flashing fake passes at onlookers and warning them away from those areas.

There was also suspicious activity reported in the basement of the jailhouse adjacent to the book depository. And another eyewitness came forward many years later and said they had seen young men fleeing out the back of the book depository after the shooting but said nothing about it at the time because they had a family to protect and didn't want to be drawn into the case.

But then profwag wants to ignore much of the eyewitness evidence just like the Warren Commission. What a shameless time waster this man is, no wonder people think he's an intelligence irregular. Nobody could be that bloody-minded without an agenda. I'm sure there are wrong-headed 'patriotic' Americans out there who would volunteer to work as spoilers on websites for no reward in the interests of a greater misguided cause.

About 75 seconds. Plenty of time and going down the stairs doesn't even require the same effort as someone going up the stairs. Thinking that someone couldn't do what he did in the time-frame alloted is simply wrong.

By who's standard? Not mine and I believe that I could have easily made the shots.

SydneyPSIder wrote: the rifle was a piece of crap as Jesse Ventura demonstrates in the above video, requiring a forceful slamming of each new cartridge and resighting to take another shot,

I don't disagree with you that the rifle was a piece o' crap. Doesn't mean it couldn't make 3 successive shots.

SydneyPSIder wrote:2-3 accurate shots were impossible in 5 or 6 seconds even for an experienced rifleman,

Wrong again. It is possible to make the shots in less than 6 seconds. Even more possible when you consider that it was closer to 10 seconds from the 1st to the third which was actually the case.

SydneyPSIder wrote: it's clear JFK was hit by bullets from the front or side, not just the rear, of course the secret servicemen

No, it is NOT clear. In fact, it is clear that all bullets came from the rear and at a downward angle. Look at Zapruder's film and you will see JFKs head move slightly forward at impact. Coupled with a little known fact that JFK was wearing a back brace and his body did exactly what would have been expected to do. Please, look at unbiased evidence.

SydneyPSIder wrote:ORDINARILY STANDING ON THE SPECIAL REAR RUNNING BOARDS OF THE PRESIDENTIAL LIMOUSINE WOULD HAVE BLOCKED SHOTS FROM THE 6TH FLOOR, AS THEY ARE BOTH STANDING AND RAISED AT THE CAR'S BUMPER LEVEL, etc.

May or may not have blocked the shot. Definitely would not have stopped the 1st and 2nd bullets. I've never seen a re-enactment of what the trajectory would have been if there were 2 agents riding on the bumper.

SydneyPSIder wrote:

In actual fact numerous eyewitnesses reported seeing a gunman up there and assumed it WAS the Secret Service, you tell me how it's possible an ordinary bystander could have noticed that detail when the Secret Service men supposedly trained to scan entire areas constantly for threats missed it?

So now you are saying there WAS someone in that window? This seems to contradict your other arguments saying LHO wouldn't have had time to descend the steps. Sooooo, which is it? Logic tells me either there was either someone in that window doing the shooting and they were able to descent out the building or there wasn't someone there to begin with. If there was someone in the window shooting, where did they go? Vanish in thin air? Or did a person such as LHO actually descend the stairs in the allotted time before being spotted by the building manager and the cop. Can't have it both ways Syd.

I spent a couple hours yesterday at Dealey Plaza and the 6th Floor Museum in Dallas yesterday, doing some personal tests and examinations and keeping an open mind. Here are my findings.I started off on the Grassy Knoll and the fence where "Badge Man" would have been. I also had a good talk with a homeless man who has been giving unofficial tours of the area for 14 years (he peddled a couple bucks from me...) He seemed to support the idea of a conspiracy. I will say that the fence area would have been the absolute best spot to shoot from. Nothing in the way, closer proximity and wouldn't have even needed a scope, easy escape route, and would have been able to remain hidden. I can more than see why people think there were shots from that area. What stood out more than anything, however, is that the fence area is approximately 25 feet higher than the road. If the shot came from that location, the angle would have been down and the bullet, unless it was magic, would have ended up inside the limo and, most likely, in Jackie as well. When I presented the homeless man with that tidbit of info, he scratched his chin and said, you know, you got a good point there. If he really had been there 14 years (and he did seem like an expert), I can't believe that I was the first person that pointed that out to him.From there, I went inside the museum. I will honestly say I was more than disappointed in the museum. There were a couple actual items from the assassination, but it was mostly nothing but pictures and you wore headsets and listened to the events while looking at the pictures. The only "real" things there was Leavett's suit that he was wearing when Oswald got shot, some cameras that were used that day (not Zaprudder's) and Ruby's hat. The boxes that formed the "snipers perch" were re-enacted based on photos, but it was obvious that someone was trying to hide their location. I spent A LOT of time watching traffic drive down Elm from the window to the right of the perch. Many cars go relatively slow as they are wanting to gawk at the Plaza. I counted, imagined shooting and cocking the bolt, etc. Here's what I found. I truly and honestly believe that I could have gotten off all 3 shots. There is a stop light that is almost directly below the window and would have been the best location to get the first shot off. What I am now confident of is my theory that the metal frame that surrounds the stop light deflected the shot. Assuming that I'm right, I counted a car that went under the light and slowly made it to the first "X" in the road (there are 2 "x's" on the road that show the location of the 2nd and 3rd shots. I counted 3.5 seconds for a car going relatively slow and the limo on Nov 22 was moving 5 mph according to my homeless man friend which would have been even longer between shots. Another 3 seconds and the car went over the 2nd "X." There is now no doubt in my mind that all 3 shots could have come from the one gun. As for the distance from the window to the fatal shot, I would not have been able to do it without a sight I don't think (car yes, but pinpointed at back of head, only if I was lucky). However, with a sight on the rifle, it would have been a piece of cake.Another thing I was disappointed in was that you can't descend the stairs. You can, however, go to the 7th floor and go down to the 6th floor which I did. I also measured the time that it took me to walk from the "perch" to the opposite side of the building where the stairs are and how long it took me to go down one flight of stairs. I walked, and didn't run (didn't want to look like a weirdo). It took me 25 seconds to go from the perch to the stairs and 10 more seconds to descend the stairs. That's 35 seconds and add 3 more 10-second flights and you get 65 seconds if not running. I'm open to honest questions and inquiries!I'm not saying in this post that there wasn't a second gunman, only that my conclusion is that LHO could have been the lone gunman, gotten off 3 shots, and made it down to the 2nd floor before he was seen by the Bldg Manager and cop.

Check this out. On the 50th Anniversary of the JFK Assassination, another new documentary was released called "The Wizard of Oswald". This one is pretty unique in that it uses the whiteboard hand drawing animation and graphics in the presentation, the kind that's used in online presentations and infomercials. It's probably the first and only presentation about the JFK Assassination in this format and style. I just watched it and it is very interesting and informative. It breaks down the people involved in the assassination, their motives and how they came to their decision. In the beginning it talks about human nature and our hierarchy of needs, and how that applies to the ruling elite. It's very long though and lasts 2 hrs 30 minutes, but definitely worth watching.

There was another documentary released on the 50th Anniversary as well, by Professor Jerry Kroth called "The JFK Assassination: What Really Happened". In it, Kroth does his own presentation and puts together the pieces of the puzzle, naming the major players, their motives and connections. It's also worth seeing.

What's interesting to note is that the mainstream media tries to DECEIVE you by steering you toward one of two conclusions:

1. That Oswald acted alone. Case closed.2. That there are too many theories and unanswered questions, that we will never know what happened. So you might as well forget about it.

But neither of these are true. If you study the work of the top JFK researchers, such as Jim Marrs, Robert Groden, Jim Fetzer, etc., and examine all the documented evidence and whistleblowers that have come out in the last 10 years, you will learn that 90 percent of the assassination has already been SOLVED. The only disagreements among researchers are about who the shooters were, how many there were, and where they were positioned. But they all agree on who the major players were and their motives. Names and connections have already been established and logically deduced. So it is a mostly solved case, NOT an unsolved one.

This is what the mainstream media doesn't want you to know and refuse to present. Instead, they try to steer you toward the false dichotomy above, to try to prevent you from seeing the truth. It's a classic mind control and disinfo technique where they give you two possibilities to appear neutral, yet both of them steer you away from the true culprits and from the truth. But it hasn't worked. Everyone knows instinctively that they've been lied to about the assassination. And the lies of the media and government have caught up to them, discredited them, and given them bad karma too. After all, you can't lie for years or decades without consequences, no matter how much power and wealth you command.

People are connected to the universe at the roots of their souls and can "feel" what's true and what isn't. The powers that be can't change that. So they continue lying, discrediting themselves, and reaping bad karmic consequences as a result. In the long run, this might be a good thing though, cause it will steer people away from faith in government and the programmed belief that authority=truth, and bring them one step closer toward liberation from lies, propaganda and mind control. Sometimes, bad things are a blessing in disguise.

“Devotion to the truth is the hallmark of morality; there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking.” - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged

Scepcop wrote:... you will learn that 90 percent of the assassination has already been SOLVED. The only disagreements among researchers are about who the shooters were, how many there were, and where they were positioned...

Not to sound critical of your assessment Winston, but aren't those three issues pretty much what the entire JFK conspiracy is all about? Who, how, and where?Who? - LHOHow many? - 1Where? - 6th Floor.

50 years later and nobody has any idea who else there could have been. No clues as to who else was involved or any new evidence to suggest anything other than LHO was the lone gunman from the 6th floor. Doesn't that tell you something?

Scepcop wrote:... you will learn that 90 percent of the assassination has already been SOLVED. The only disagreements among researchers are about who the shooters were, how many there were, and where they were positioned...

Not to sound critical of your assessment Winston, but aren't those three issues pretty much what the entire JFK conspiracy is all about? Who, how, and where?Who? - LHOHow many? - 1Where? - 6th Floor.

50 years later and nobody has any idea who else there could have been. No clues as to who else was involved or any new evidence to suggest anything other than LHO was the lone gunman from the 6th floor. Doesn't that tell you something?

In light of the info presented in the 2 videos above, particularly ALL the information/supposition supplied by Prof Jerry Kroth, and the computer re-enactment of the actual 6th floor view in the second video at 39:17, including positioning of lightpoles and trees, I tend to think that profwag's assertions are more unlikely than the multiple shooter scenario. Also in light of the complete history and connections of LHO with other people including David Ferrie, Jack Ruby, his likely employment as a dispensable 'intelligence irregular' and so on.

Prof Kroth names a number of likely suspects who were the assassins. He makes a convincing case for the involvement of the Mafia, unlike other researchers who claim LBJ declared he didn't want to use the Mafia as he would owe them.

As both Prof Kroth and the second video points out, 2 studies of audio from the police radio recording performed by independent expert audio labs counted 5 shots on the audio, without the acoustic hallmarks of echoes. They also indicate frames have been removed from the Zapruder film or it has otherwise been tampered with, as the audio from the police radio recording doesn't exactly line up with Zapruder's film. This also perfectly deals with the 'magic bullet' problem. It also explains why 2 shots from different directions caused JFK's head and body to start moving forward, then suddenly jerk violently back as the fatal head shot struck.

The Dallas PD were told they weren't needed, the Secret Service had it covered. They then 'failed' to spot ppl on the 6th floor of the depository -- either deliberately, or just because the total forces present in the area were deliberately stretched too thin by the architects of the assassination. Even eyewitnesses on the street noticed one or more persons on the 6th floor with a rifle, and just assumed they were secret service.

It appears according to Prof Kroth's analysis that LHO was probably in the lunch room the whole time, and not on the 6th floor.

The testimony of James Files was that he was on the grassy knoll and made the lethal shot with a Remington Fireball, a short near-rifle with a scope that can also be discreetly concealed. See also http://jfkmurdersolved.com/filestruth.htm

It appears that the wounds observed by doctors were not consonant with a couple of gunshot wounds from the rear.

It would have been very difficult to get off three even near-accurate shots with the Carcano rifle as the sights were out of alignment, it was a single shot rifle requiring a lot of movement to rechamber and resight for each shot, etc etc.

Then there is the problem that Mac Wallace's fingerprint was found on one of the boxes in the 'sniper's nest' on the 6th floor of the book depository, another finding that profwag continually conveniently overlooks and fails to address in these discussions. According to Prof Kroth there was also evidence someone had had a chicken dinner or breakfast up there and had settled in for hours, whereas witnesses placed LHO in the lunchroom as little as 10 minutes before the motorcade arrived, and in the lunchroom with a Coke 90 seconds after the shooting. This is not how you would attempt an assassination, not knowing exactly when the motorcade would go past, but nonchalantly having lunch on a different floor a few minutes prior.

Further, there were women in the stairwell at the same time that LHO was supposed to be descending from the 6th floor who reported encountering no-one.

While the shots from the 6th floor location (and it's possible Mac Wallace was placed further along on the 6th floor than the sniper's nest, according to one photo which was cropped for public viewing to exclude the image of a man in a window further along the 6th floor) could have been taken as sort of potshots as the car rounded the bend, the accurate fatal shot appears to have been delivered from the grassy knoll.

There are other witnesses who have come forward to declare they saw men escaping out the back of the depository but did not dare to say anything at the time, an understandable reason given the extraordinary number of deaths surrounding people who might have known something about a conspiracy, but also given the likely attention to the case from the outset of a presidential assassination.

There is also the question of whether in fact there was a shooter or shooters in the Dal-Tex building next to the book depository, where the CIA had offices. Then there is a questioned link with GHW Bush also being present that day, as he was supposed to be in Dallas at around that time, was always called an 'independent oil operator' in the press, had strong CIA links, his 'business partner' was 'ex'-CIA (if that's possible), and decided to phone in a very odd and questionable alibi on the day -- and, unlike virtually every other adult American alive at the time, mysteriously couldn't remember exactly where he was at the moment JFK was shot. He was later mysteriously made 'the first civilian head of the CIA' by Gerald Ford, a Republican who also happened to be on the Warren Commission, along with JFK's arch-enemy, Allen Dulles, whom he had fired as head of the CIA shortly before the assassination for overstepping its charter. At face value, it seems a very strange and unlikely appointment to make an independent oil operator the head of a govt outfit like the CIA, doesn't it?

Then there are the longstanding connections of Jack Ruby to both Richard Nixon and the Mafia. His excuse and pretext for shooting LHO within 48 hours -- something that a reasonable person might suspect was to do with shutting LHO up -- was that he didn't want Jackie Kennedy to suffer any more through a judicial process -- hardly the sort of misplaced sentimentality someone might possess being a JFK-hating Mafia associate (as they were kicked out of Cuba by Castro and JFK had failed to support a coup to regain Cuba for the mob's continued activities there) and a pretty hard-nosed character to boot. The Mafia had also realised some time before that a patsy was useful to take the fall for major hits.

It turns out LHO's revolver had a defective firing pin and therefore did not work -- making his shooting of Office Tippitt extremely unlikely -- and it was not the logical way for him to return to his lodgings either, even as he realised he had been set up as some kind of patsy -- just as he advised the media later as best he could before he was permanently silenced.

All of profwag's assertions are implausible and don't fit the full body of evidence and fail to explain many anomalies, which is, of course, the same as the criticisms made of the Warren Commission itself, criticisms which even some of the commissioners themselves agreed with at the time. He deliberately and wilfully ignores almost all the other information, background and connections surrounding the characters associated with the event. 60% of the US public believe there was more than one shooter. An enquiry was re-opened in the 70s that concluded there was a conspiracy. Dan Rather deliberately lied to the public about what he saw on the Zapruder film, and the new enquiry was started once the public saw the Zapruder film for the first time some 12 years later as a matter of public protest.

I seriously cannot understand profwag's wilful stubbornness on the matter. Any true 'sceptic' would be rightly sceptical of the official account. Profwag faithfully conforms to at least the essence of the official story and insists it 'might have been possible and was therefore probable' although he has also never addressed the requirement of LHO to be a time traveller in order to know to get a job in the book depository as he knew before anyone else about a planned trip to Dallas, except for JFK's aides in Washington and LBJ, and a last minute route change where the car would slow down on a bend (against all protocols), that the police escort would be in an improper place (against all protocols), that the Dallas PD would be stood down (against all protocols) and therefore he would not be spotted as easily on the 6th floor, that the Secret Service bodyguard at the rear of the car would be ordered to stand down off the car just before entering the plaza (against all protocols) which would allow a clear shot from the rear -- but of course the police bike escort being instructed to ride behind the rear wheel of the presidential limo rather than on all four corners as a bodyguard would also allow for a clear shot from alternative locations chosen for a sure kill such as the grassy knoll. One can only speculate on profwag's motivations.

Let me preface this by saying that I've had one too many brewskies so this may not make any sense. But looking at those photos above, do any of those look like the blood splatter from the Zapruder film? I mean, how could a bullet go through the man's temple and blood shoot straight forward? Doesn't make a lick of sense to me.

ProfWag wrote:Let me preface this by saying that I've had one too many brewskies so this may not make any sense. But looking at those photos above, do any of those look like the blood splatter from the Zapruder film? I mean, how could a bullet go through the man's temple and blood shoot straight forward? Doesn't make a lick of sense to me.

hmm, that post doesn't make a lick of sense to me. What does it mean?

There was a bullet fired from the rear and as James Files points out, a split second later he fired a shot into JFK's right temple while aiming for the right eye. Hence you see JFK start to move forward slightly from the impact of a conventional bullet from the rear, then almost immediately jerk back as Files' hollow point bullet strikes his temple and exits out the back of his head with a severe exit wound. The blood from the exit wound goes back in that moment.

If that's what you're alluding to. We all have to be a bit psychic on this board.

SydneyPSIder wrote:There was a bullet fired from the rear and as James Files points out, a split second later he fired a shot into JFK's right temple while aiming for the right eye. Hence you see JFK start to move forward slightly from the impact of a conventional bullet from the rear, then almost immediately jerk back as Files' hollow point bullet strikes his temple and exits out the back of his head with a severe exit wound. The blood from the exit wound goes back in that moment.

So where is the exit wound on the left side of his head? And where did that bullet go?

SydneyPSIder wrote:There was a bullet fired from the rear and as James Files points out, a split second later he fired a shot into JFK's right temple while aiming for the right eye. Hence you see JFK start to move forward slightly from the impact of a conventional bullet from the rear, then almost immediately jerk back as Files' hollow point bullet strikes his temple and exits out the back of his head with a severe exit wound. The blood from the exit wound goes back in that moment.

So where is the exit wound on the left side of his head? And where did that bullet go?

Wait a second, that's a different set of questions to your last assertion about blood spatters which you've failed to demonstrate. Already moving on?

You're saying where did the 4th bullet go? Why would it be on the left side of his head? Or the 5th hollow point bullet that exited at the rear?

Further, there is a role for the use of at least one silenced rifle in the assassination, which could possibly allow for more bullets to have been fired.

I don't know, why don't tell us? YOU posted the below pictures. If those are accurate, it appears to me that there should have been some kind of an exit wound on the left side of his head, unless, of course, it was a "magic bullet."